Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600K outperforms the cheaper Core i5-11400F on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i5-11400F is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600K and the cheaper Core i5-11400F have been released at the same time.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 3% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-11400F - 204 vs 199 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11400F
- Up to 43% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - $113.0 vs $198.9
- Up to 41% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-11600K - $0.57 vs $0.97 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600K - 65 vs 125 Watts
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
204
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.97/FPS
58.762886597938135%
Price, $
$198.9
56%
FPS Winner
Buy for $198.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348668 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
199
97.54901960784314%
Value, $/FPS
$0.57/FPS
100%
Price, $
$113
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $113 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348668 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Single-Core
1961
89.70722781335773%
Multi-Core
7608
88.68166452966545%
Intel Core i5-11600K | vs | Intel Core i5-11400F |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 6 |
12 | Threads | 12 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
39.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
UHD Graphics 750 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |